On Oct 25, 11:51*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

Is that a certainty with the lesser clearances that are now known to
be needed ? Was there any significant rebuilding on the Widened Lines
when 25kV was installed ?

No, but the clearances are minimal, and 319s sit lower on their
suspensions than 321s do (I guess 377/5s do comoared with other 377s
but have yet to find this data).

Some of the track was lowered by using slab track - the usual reason
stated for slab track in the tunnels is reduced maintenance - which
is of course true - but overall it is lower height than sleepered
track allowing shoe horning of OLE.




To go off on a complete tangent does any one know if the 3000 volt 3
phase system the Metropolitan railway considered would have been
straightfoward to install, or would that have required some tunnel
alterations.


That depends how you look at this.

Other statements that " xx volts" are difficult to install in tunnels
are incorrect without qualification. There is no difficulty in
installing anything in tunnels provided the tunnel is big enough, so
if you go back in time to when these ideas were proposed the
underground network was a lot smaller, and, in the case of the Met.
and Dist. that already existed far easier to have altered than today
- you don't have huger tower blocks foundations straddling the railway
making for impossible obstructions. Cut and cover lines could have
been more easily dug out then but imagine trying to do that now with
todays road traffic ... and road lobby.


I'd say if it had been done at the time it was proposed it would have
required alterations of larger extent than today because they'd need
larger clearances than todays modern insulation standards allow, and
those alterations would have been far far less disruptive than
attempting it today.

--
Nick

On the subject of 25 kV Met, Marylebone etc etc, I am still of the
view that a better Thameslink upgrade would not have been to link the
ex Midland lines to GN as KX/SP but to have linked the Midland to the
Met/GC at West Hampstead, with trains being able to both switch
between both routes. This could have been done using the sites to the
south of the present West Hampstead stations, and incorporated the NLL
station at a higher level.

This could have allowed the ML to retain its Moorgate link (but some
trains switching to the MET), allowed relief of Baker Street junction
(by having some MET trains switch to TL), and give and electrified
Chilterns route access to TL (solving the longer/more trains at
Marylebone issue).

It would also give a better spread of trains through the TL core - one
of the issues is GN realistically can't take more than 8 TPH off TL
but 24 TPH means 16 TPH have to head for the Midland which is not so
sensible. If those were (say) inner suburbans from (one time)
Wimbledon loop or other southern metro line those logically go to
Watford Met or Uxbridge, while some of the faster TL core trains can
go to [say] Aylesbury as well as Bedford.

Before some nitwit comments, it assumed that all surface lines and
Chilterns works will be to 12cars or 8car SDO where uneconomic - don't
say it is impossible - uk.railways said 4car NLL and 12car TL was
impossible but now are reality.

If this had been done with the TL works, you'd now have a 25 kV wired
Chilterns, and linking with other matters taking AC that way towards
Banbury (for Birmingham) would result in considerable synergy and
economy of scale with the current electric Spine project.

GN capacity in my view should be dealt with by new construction from
around Finsbury Park - thats where Crossrail 2 should go on the
north side.

--
Nick

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
D7666 wrote:
installing anything in tunnels provided the tunnel is big enough, so

Well thats the problem isn't it. In the UK there seems to be a culture in
civil engineering to get away with as small as you possibly can. You see this
everywhere in roads, buildings and of course the hopeless railway loading gauge.

B2003

On Oct 29, 9:35*am, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:11:13 -0700 (PDT)

D7666 wrote:
installing anything in tunnels provided the tunnel is big enough, so

Well thats the problem isn't it. In the UK there seems to be a culture in
civil engineering to get away with as small as you possibly can. You see this
everywhere in roads, buildings and of course the hopeless railway loading gauge.

Not to mention the size of homes. I have seen bedrooms in which it
would be impossible to fit the smallest bed.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 02:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:35=A0am, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:11:13 -0700 (PDT)

D7666 wrote:
installing anything in tunnels provided the tunnel is big enough, so

Well thats the problem isn't it. In the UK there seems to be a culture in
civil engineering to get away with as small as you possibly can. You see =
this
everywhere in roads, buildings and of course the hopeless railway loading=
gauge.

Not to mention the size of homes. I have seen bedrooms in which it
would be impossible to fit the smallest bed.

Indeed. Some new builds in particular are pretty disgraceful especially given
the price is usually on par with much bigger older houses.

B2003

In message
, at
02:39:29 on Mon, 29 Oct 2012, 77002 remarked:
Well thats the problem isn't it. In the UK there seems to be a culture in
civil engineering to get away with as small as you possibly can. You see this
everywhere in roads, buildings and of course the hopeless railway loading gauge.

Not to mention the size of homes. I have seen bedrooms in which it
would be impossible to fit the smallest bed.

Not seen one quite that small, but the bed in my 4th bedroom only fits
in one direction, the other it's about an inch too long (and that would
be after removing the skirting boards). It is slightly longer than
average [single] bed though.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:36:23 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
Not to mention the size of homes. I have seen bedrooms in which it
would be impossible to fit the smallest bed.

Not seen one quite that small, but the bed in my 4th bedroom only fits
in one direction, the other it's about an inch too long (and that would
be after removing the skirting boards). It is slightly longer than
average [single] bed though.

Your 4th bedroom? Obviously you must live in a cramped hovel. How do you
manage?

B2003

In message , at 17:00:30 on Mon, 29 Oct
2012, d remarked:
Not to mention the size of homes. I have seen bedrooms in which it
would be impossible to fit the smallest bed.

Not seen one quite that small, but the bed in my 4th bedroom only fits
in one direction, the other it's about an inch too long (and that would
be after removing the skirting boards). It is slightly longer than
average [single] bed though.

Your 4th bedroom? Obviously you must live in a cramped hovel. How do you
manage?

It's half the size of the last house I owned! One of the bedrooms (the
biggest) is mine and my wife's office. One is our bedroom, which leaves
one each for the two teenage children. Clearly, neither was delighted at
the prospect of getting a 6ft by 7ft room...

If we have guests then there's a sleeper-sofa in the living room.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:21:25 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
It's half the size of the last house I owned! One of the bedrooms (the
biggest) is mine and my wife's office. One is our bedroom, which leaves
one each for the two teenage children. Clearly, neither was delighted at
the prospect of getting a 6ft by 7ft room...

Sounds like a prime candidate for knocking down a wall or 2.

B2003